User talk:Captainmike/archive 2009
user talk:captainmike/archive 2007 user talk:captainmike/archive 2008 ---- Galloway Hi Mike, I just wanted to seek your opinion and guidance relating to Dave Galloway, as I know you are a rank enthusiast and hopefully be able to answer my question :D Galloway has had his rank given as lieutenant in his previous appearances, but in , he was given the rank of [sergeant. This seems at odds with me as it is typically an army rank, but is it possible for him to actually hold this rank? Secondly, looking through the MA article on Galloway I noticed that the James Blish novelization of "The Omega Glory" gives the name of the officer killed by Ron Tracey as Lt. Raintree, which would allow Galloway to survive for his future appearances. Obviously, MA couldn't use this as an explanation, but is it something we should do? --The Doctor 01:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC) :There have been other Starfleet sergeants -- a sergeant is equivalent to a naval petty officer first class and is an enlisted serviceman with at least a few years experience, but no applicable collegiate education. More advanced sergeants are also normally referred to as "sergeant" in normal address and are equivalent to the various grades of chief petty officer. :An exceptional sergeant could be granted a commission as an officer, but the Starfleet rules on this aren't clear -- we've seen that both enlisted servicepeople and ensigns wear no insignia in TOS, so there's no way to tell if many crossed this line. -- Captain MKB 04:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC) :On the naming, we should probably have an article for both Galloway and Raintree -- I lean towards canon in these cases but its a definite head scratcher. :For some reason, rank wise, I'm theorizing some situation where he was a "brevet officer" (notice some Lt.s lack rank stripes in TOS on every other occasion) -- perhaps he was a sergeant who was field promoted to Lt. and had some bizarre "Sergeant Lieutenant" rank that a modern rank buff would find ridiculous. -- Captain MKB 13:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC) ::The rank issue is certainly a head scratcher considering that standard naval ranks are applied to the other officers in the story. Maybe, its best to include that as a background note. Looking over his death and resurrection, I suppose its a similar case to Ed Leslie's death in "Obsession", only for him to turn up later. I suppose Raintree could be a get out, but as you say, the canon would take precedence. --The Doctor 15:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Sovereign Class Hi, Captainmike. I've corrected the error you noticed in the Sovereign class article. I also see your point regarding the USS Gibraltar's registry. However, in trying to improve the look of the page, I've deleted the references to specific ship registries, so that piece of information should be a non-issue for this particular page. (That of the Gibraltar proper is another story.) . Also, I'm trying to track down anything that might be left of the original attribution regarding the USS Republic, or secure a new one from the author of the relevant book (A Time To Heal), David Mack. The TrekBBS no longer prunes threads, so a new attribution ought to be more semi-permanent than was the original. --Cicero 23:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC) :Thanks for receiving my note! I think the article looks good with the alphabetized list! :Well, I'm not sure a TrekBBS post would give us a valid reference to add to this site -- since we are limited to Star Trek books and games. I think we'd have to see it in print in a book or game to really confirm that Republic reference. -- Captain MKB 23:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC) ::Thanks. I'll add the pageless video game ships to the list. (Though I can't seem to find the "what links to this" feature to which you directed me. How does one use it?) ::Wouldn't a message board post by an author be similar to a statement by the same author in a non-licensed magazine like Starlog, or in some other more formal interview context? The class of the Republic is merely a clarification of the author's intent when writing the book, not new information developed after the fact - rather like clarification of something out of focus or too small to see on screen (but still there).--Cicero 23:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC) :The difference is that if an author makes a comment in an interview, even in a licensed magazine, its still not "part of the story" -- Peter David could joke around in Starlog about Captain Calhoun wearing panties, but that wouldn't make it "true" because it wasn't said in a passage from a New Frontier novel -- see what I mean? :if you go to USS Affiliation (Sovereign class) (click this link) -- then look in you left hand toolbox (under the search box in most skins) and you can see "what links here" -- click on it and it will show you which articles link to it -- one of them is Starfleet Command III, the source -- Captain MKB 23:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC) ::There is a clear line, I think, which differentiates clarification from speculation or humor. In the case of the Republic, someone asked Mr. Mack what class he'd intended it to be, since he'd seemed to have had a clear physical concept of the ship in mind when writing (matched, of course, by the text). He replied that it was meant to be Sovereign class. ::If he'd speculated about reasons why it might be Sovereign class, having not had that before him while writing (as Christopher Bennett was asked to do when he noted that he hadn't had a ship class in mind for a particular vessel in Greater Than The Sum), the remarks would be clearly extraneous to the encyclopedia. But what he did say seems more like backstage information about a particular difficult-to-see detail of a filmed production (such as the personnel files in In A Mirror, Darkly, which aren't legible even in HD) than it does speculation, or, much less, jocularity. ::Thanks for the help regarding the "what links here" tool. Hopefully, I'll always remember to keep it in mind. : ) --Cicero 00:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC) :There's a difference here that hasn't been examined -- the unseen texts from the episodes were actually written before the episodes were released. Any "after-the-fact" author commentary is just that -- after-the-fact. He never wrote down any solid class information before or during the novel's released sections. -- ~!Captain MKB 00:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC) ::He may not have written the information, but it was what he intended while writing. Had the novel been a film, its what we would've seen. I'm still trying to work out sourcing, without which our debate is relatively moot. If and when it's arranged, I'll try to offer more significant argument.--Cicero 00:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC) ::At last, I've been provided with a copy of the relevant post by Mr. Mack (which he confirms the content of to the best of his recollection): :::In case you're wondering, I did decide what those starships were before I wrote the story, but when I was writing the book there was no artful way to insert the information without it coming off as an unmotivated technobabble dump. But since it seems to have impaired your reading experience, I'll fill you in: the Republic is Sovereign-class; the Amargosa is Nebula-class; and the Musashi is Akira-class. ::I think his comments speak effectively to several of your concerns. Given his obvious intent at the time of writing, I think the Republic 's, Amargosa 's, and Musashi 's classes should be included. This is a special case of true behind-the-scenes information, which is seldom available in this type. (Mr. Christoper Bennet, for instance, gave no thought to the class of Greater Than The Sum's USS Einstein until after he finished writing.) ::(Mr. Mack's work on the Destiny trilogy avoids this trouble; every ship is identified by class, and nearly every person by full name and position - artfully, no less.)--Cicero 03:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC) :I still don't think a comment made after the fact has any relevance towards the information in the book, sorry. If Mr. Mack was able to include this clarification in his next book, fine, but as a side comment from an author, made without his employers' involvements, this has no weight towards our article material. -- Captain MKB 12:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC) ::Just to further explain my comments, I once felt that there could be a looser interpretation of our site's rules -- I wanted very much for us to use unpublished materials from a RPG source that had been cancelled. A large group of users talked it out, and we decided that since the materials were never published, they wren't actually "part" of the licensed Star Trek universe. ::I also had a similar situation when I found a list of shipnames in the code from a PC video game -- I wanted to make articles on all of them.. a group of other users discussed it with me and talked me out of it -- because the names were never actually used for ships in the game, so they were never "part" of the game, and therefore wouldn't be part of our site. ::I was a little frustrated by the requirements -- I had/have to delete a lot of those links. You see, if there weren't other people working here and discussing these things, then this wouldn't be a community website -- and I like taking part in the community rather than working alone. Part of working with the community is recognizing that my viewpoint wouldn't always win when we tried to figure out how things would work. This happened to me at Memory Alpha also -- I proposed a very complicated template for each individual uniform ever worn, and other users talked me out of it because of the sheer complexity of it would be hard for users to deal with while editing and reading -- and I had to be frustrated, take a long hard look at it, and realize they were right. I hope this helps you deal with your frustration about the points we've disagreed with -- when we add to a community, we have to make sure things fit with the community. -- Captain MKB 19:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC) 2 seconds ago... Mike, just realized what I did with the Countdown talk edit summary - and feel really stupid, cos it's one of my pet-peeves too - very sorry!! -- unsigned :Fixed -- feel free to try again.. :Please, start signing your talk comments too! -- Captain MKB 23:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Hmm - 2 stupid mistakes in one go - it's been a long day! – CommodoreFisher 00:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC) USS Titan senior staff Template Hi Mike. The template USS Titan crew template was intended to be confined to that ship's senior staff, like the Enterprise-E senior staff template. (I can't seem to effect a reversion myself - and leave my explanation on the talk page - so I'm bringing this specifically to your attention.) There have been at least 60 or so crew members of the Titan named so far, rendering a complete crew list template impractical. This is usual for a starring ship - even senior staff members tend to accumulate rapidly. By limiting the crew template to the senior staff, it remains an easy-access tool to navigate among them. If you'd really like templates which include the other crew, perhaps we could produce department-by-department templates? Each would have at least as many listed persons as some existing crew templates.--Cicero 00:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC) :Well, 60 crew might necessitate department by department templates -- however, I'd be interested to see how well they fit into one. :I think our largest crew template is the template:USS da Vinci personnel -- but I haven't counted through that one. :Either way, I still think we should follow the conventions of the other templates and name them using "USS" and then lowercase for all the additional words (for example, the Template:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) medical personnel template) -- Captain MKB 00:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC) ::I agree regarding the capitalization. At the very least, it's much easier to type when looking for the page. ::For what it matters, the largest template I'm aware of is Template:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E) personnel, which carries about 150 names.--Cicero 01:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC) :I'm sure that if the Titan template had the senior staff at the top and the rest of the crew at the bottom, it still wouldn't be as big as that one.. -- Captain MKB 01:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC) ::The template wouldn't be so large now (or, probably, soon), but the crew manifest will continue to grow as the novel series progresses (probably significantly, if the usual Titan novel continues to be at least average in its crew name production). I think we would do well to confine the template as much as is practicable. Perhaps we could include a link to the complete crew manifest? Or perhaps each department template could carry links to each other department?--Cicero 01:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Lists In Singular Destiny I have a long list of dead folks which includes two very important characters. Should I put these names under references? They're already listed on another page, but belong on the book's page as well. What do you think? – AT2Howell 04:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Probably best under a "casualty list" subsection to keep them separated, but definitely yes. -- Captain MKB 10:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC) :I guess you still haven't read it? – AT2Howell 17:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC) I haven't but I am keeping abreast of the happenings now -- great article material. -- Captain MKB 19:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC) :I've got to say that the two characters on the casualty list really surprised me. I re-read it a couple of times and still didn't believe it. – AT2Howell 19:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC) ::True they are surprising -- and we should be careful to add spoiler warnings to articles that mention them, in case someone still wants to read this story and be surprised about it, they would really think we were jerks if we spoiled it for them, don't you think? -- Captain MKB 18:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC) An anonymous vandal We've got a vandal: . Jono reverted the edit, but I thought I'd bring it to your attention so you can block the jackass. --TimPendragon 06:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Commodore Travers edit from Dec 2008 It's been roughly 2 and a half months, but since it's recently been updated, here goes. My Commodore Travers trivia was erased because it was unclear: Commodore Travers warns Picard of his distrust towards him with the phrase, "Here There Be Dragons." In the TNG novel of the same title, Jean-Luc Picard again is in the middle of Dramatis Personae. With reptiles (not Gorn) essential to the main plot. For clarity that was, of course "Dixon Hill"'s dialogue between himself and Travers. Obviously the Commodore didn't buy his bit about the Stargazer (merchant ship), how a non-Starfleet member has an advanced artificial heart etc. Travers then tells him in the novel that "Here there be..." marked maps in the Middle Ages for a reason: to warn captains about possible dangers in the unknown. The novel Here There Be Dragons also makes the connection to that period of Earth history. The dramatis personae comes from the fact that Jean-Luc assumes the alias of his favorite, fictional private eye. In the other novel, Jean-Luc (as Lukas) takes on another identity. Much like he did as Robin Hood in "Qpid". Finally, Gorn and literal dragons are the reptiles that play important roles in both stories. :What does "in the middle of Dramatis Personae" mean? Keeping in mind that "Dramatis Personae" is a DS9 episode that neither mentions nor features Picard. If you meant that Picard was a main character, you might've said "Picard was in the d''ramatis ''p''ersonae (emphasis on the article/capitalization construction for clarity, and not confusingly linked to the DS9 episode), or even better, you might've used English and stated that he was a ''main character'. I'm not sure how it would be determined he was "in the middle" of it when he is the lead character of the series :The sentence fragment "With reptiles (not Gorn) essential to the main plot." was not entirely clear -- perhaps you meant to use a comma and not to start a new sentence. Did you mean that "Here There Be Dragons" had reptiles also? I've never read it. There would probably be more meaning if you constructed the sentence without parentheses, either. :Also, wouldn't it be notable as forshadowing, that Travers referenced 'dragons' shortly before he was killed by reptiles? maybe the other novel was less significant than the irony ignored in Requiem. -- Captain MKB 04:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC) ::I don't want to get in the middle of this, but just an observation here. "Dramatis personae" literally means "the masks of drama," essentially "playing a role." I took Ensignsisko's phrase "in the middle of dramatis personae" to mean that Picard was undercover, or pretending to be someone else, as he did in Requiem. Again, odd phrasing, but the meaning wasn't that hard to parse. --TimPendragon 04:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC) CaptMike: Yes, I meant the plot device, dramatis personnae-not the DS9 episode. Even though Sisko's the best (laugh). Jokes aside, yes Here There Be Dragons have reptiles. They're something like evil versions of the ones from Berengaria VII. Good point about the ironic twist. Tim: Thanks. You got the idea. I've read "Requiem" all the way but only some of "Here..." ::Thanks for the input Tim -- I would've thought he meant that also, but the text was in actuality: "in the middle of Dramatis Personae" -- there was an actual link to the DS9 episode. As I said above, if it had been unlinked, and lowercased, it might've been more apparent. Just one of those things where correct link-code, capitalization and grammar can make mountains of difference towards clarifying your meaning. -- Captain MKB 12:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Archive Hey Cap, how do you archive your talk page? In the last year and a half my talk page has gotten quite long. – AT2Howell 15:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC) :Just use the "move" feature to move it to a new location -- i usually add "/archive" or something to the end. Then use your original talk page -- by deleting the redirect that is created. -- Captain MKB 16:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Path to 2409 Continuing the discussion from Donatra... :Look at Worf. At the bottom is a little indented paragraph that discribes a possible future for Worf. We have no reason to believe that is will not come to be, yet for some reason it is offset from the rest of the article. Why don't we do this with the 2409 info? – AT2Howell 20:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Category removal... * Category:ENT Novels Everything that was there can be found in Category:ENT novels. Now just to worry about the ~200 books in TOS, the ~150 in TNG, etc. :) -- sulfur 23:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Some more for you: * Category:Stargazer Novels * Category:NF Novels * Category:Reference Books Only a buttload left now! Heh. -- sulfur 13:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Ban this guy 124.191.130.142 is causing trouble. I reverted his edit of the first federation page. – AT2Howell 04:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Capt Rosal Might want to keep an eye on User:Capt Rosal and his . --Captain Savar 03:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC) :(Capt Rosal 06:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC))Cole Treewalker has been deleted and or stolen by savar i have contributed just one other story i think this is a rush to judgement and a by what i have deduced by added personnel attack comments on my self who is new here if you put the reason for this and enable my peace of mind that this is truly deleted or give this back back amin backender dag . ::I deleted Cole Treewalker. That article was unacceptable. -- Captain MKB 06:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC) :Was the misspellings in your most recent comment on his talk page ironic, or unintentional? --Captain Savar 21:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC) ::They were delivered in the same vein I believe his were. -- Captain MKB 22:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Skorr/Aurelians Hey, Mike... You're probably aware of this, but just in case Ensignsisko makes some kind of stink, I figured I'd bring it up. He's apparently confusing the Skorr and the Aurelians, which is a common enough problem amongst Trekkers (and even some authors) who think they know more than they do. The two races are distinct, according to every canon and print source that we have. The difficulty arises in that visually, they are identical, since the TAS animators used the same template for both. Since the species name "Aurelian" was never mentioned on screen, those that haven't read the ADF novelizations or are not familiar with the supplemental material from TAS automatically assume that they are all Skorr. Perhaps some kind of preemptive, disambiguatory note should be added to the species' respective pages? --TimPendragon 02:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC) :That's a valid point, and you're right -- a note of explanation of the difference, if phrased properly, would help both the articles. I'm not aware of any of the sources referring to specific quadrants, so I hope the other reversion will be justified also. I'd be fine with a note about the possible connections due to the similarity, but we should be careful about about specifying our assumptions as to their location, relation to each other, etc. -- Captain MKB 03:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC) ::Won't make a stink. Trekdom already has enough fishy subject matters. (For example, look up the unnamed Caitian/Kzinti Rura Penthe prisoner (if either was what it was!) @ Memory Alpha's roll call for Undiscovered Country.) ::That was very informative, as I seem to be part of a larger demographic over the years that made the same mistake between the "birdmen". Whatever's decided is fine with me-can't add nor take away water from the coffee after it's been brewed.– Ensignsisko 07:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC) opps I didn't realise this book wasn't actually out - you can search and read pretty much the whole thing on amazon. Sorry about that. --Joezhanger 21:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC) Welcome message Not sure anyone noticed my post on the forum, but I'd suggest putting the welcome and welcome-anon templates in the Wikia auto-notice locations. --Captain Savar 14:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Wiki question How do I change the email address my alerts get sent to from this wiki? I'm leaving the Navy and going over to NASA, meaning I'm shutting this adress down on Monday. – AT2Howell 18:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC) From Mjmjr91 I appreciate all of your assistance in regards to welcoming me to Memory Beta as a user. I believe you left me a message which stated something along the lines that it is against the rules to copy from Memory Alpha without explicit consent from the writer of that article. I am more than happy to either go back and get permission from the writer, or undo my changes. The only problem I am having is that I cannot track the writer of the pages. On Memory Beta there is "a page last edited by" note at the bottom. But for this particular page, (Star Trek Countdown #3) I can't find one. And, hopefully I'm correctly leaving you a message. At least I figured out that the user page and user talk pages are two separate pages. LOL I've been reading the Memory Beta wiki for a couple years but never edited anything until now. Thanks, (and I appreciate your help) – Mjmjr91 22:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC) :You'll have to click on the "history" tab. Or perhaps ask on the talk page for an admin to help. -- Captain MKB 22:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Capt Rosal (kalas 00:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC))hi it so good to have been made feel welcome by you guys big kidders :All your sentiments towards me, I can assure you I feel the same way, right back at you! -- Captain MKB 02:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC) sentiments same same vein ironic all i hear is narrative explanations from people i have looked around and found less effort than i put in to my work just to have you use trek star argument from another place ,,,, if you have some professional reasoning then go to wiki and tell them what yau hated about my finished article that i have taken down how fast is come back at to 20 word and one edit or just more back stabing bull shit in the same vein as trek stars power trip is this the content you like to spread i made an effort in good faith and all you can do is get personnel with the memory gamma arguments like get there batlef out i have spent more time haveing to deal with trek stars accusations and your "got a problem" argument starter crap if you want to make this personnel then don,t use my story as your script just come out and say it be a man and put yours and trek stars on the line and then wiki can tell us who is craping on ,,,,,,trek star , he has not vandalised yet,,,, is this a good way to start a friendship and what your doing is worse with this amount of negative how is a person going to be a positive contributor or am i the person you would rather vandlize with some mirror argument as you think you know me all to well no effort is ever wasted excepting when you see them comeing and you have decided with the balance of this personnel attack with all the information at your discretion all 20 lines of word . Earth Starfleet ranks As I'm entering data for the Earth Starfleet personnel mentioned in the Star Trek: Destiny trilogy, I was going to put their rank images in the sidebars, but I'm not sure if they're uploaded to this wiki or not. Memory Alpha has them, but the image pages indicate the copyright belongs to you. So... any objections to uploading them here? I'll work on the Earth Starfleet ranks page. --Captain Savar 20:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC) :I'm flattered you noticed! Any illustration I made and copyrighted for MA is applicable for reuse in any Wikia site as long as no edits are made to the image file and the attribution notice reflects my authorship and that fact. :However, since I made those, a newer style has really taken hold here on MB and on the ST Expanded wiki -- rank images by Kuro-RPG, another fansite. Kuro's ENT ranks have all been uploaded to stexpanded.wikia.com and are a nice set, I think they'd fit better with the size and format we use here (when I make images these days I try to make my style choices fit with Kuro's) -- Captain MKB 22:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC) ::Are you talking about the standard set or the special set? --Captain Savar 22:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC) :Only about half of Kuro's standard set is really derived from canon (and there is no licensed data on the ranks) -- so only the canon ones should really be used here... -- Captain MKB 23:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC) ::I understand, but which set do you like/should we use on this wiki? --Captain Savar 23:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC) :They are pretty much the same except the special edition has a slightly different size and a lot of extraneous ranks. I think we've already started with the special edition -- image:Earth cmd capt.png. But like I said, we shouldn't use the whole set for all those extraneous ranks that we'll never reference here -- Captain MKB 23:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC) :Let's narrow it down: image:Earth adm.pngimage:Earth vadm.pngimage:Earth radm.pngimage:Earth cdore.pngimage:Earth cmd capt.pngimage:Earth ops capt.pngimage:Earth sci capt.pngimage:Earth cmd cmdr.pngimage:Earth ops cmdr.pngimage:Earth sci cmdr.pngimage:Earth cmd lt.pngimage:Earth ops lt.pngimage:Earth sci lt.pngimage:Earth cmd ens.pngimage:Earth ops ens.pngimage:Earth sci ens.pngimage:Earth cmd crew1.pngimage:Earth ops crew1.pngimage:Earth sci crew1.pngimage:Earth cmd crew2.pngimage:Earth ops crew2.pngimage:Earth sci crew2.pngimage:Earth cmd crew3.pngimage:Earth ops crew3.pngimage:Earth sci crew3.pngimage:Earth cmd crew.pngimage:Earth ops crew.pngimage:Earth sci crew.png :Unfortunately, canon hasn't shown us anything about what a Chief would wear. -- Captain MKB 23:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC) ::Thanks. Of course you named them completely different from how I did as I was working on the table... alas. --Captain Savar 00:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC) ::There was one (the command captain) that I had uploaded last year using this naming convention and I went with that -- sorry. -- Captain MKB 00:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Capitalization Hey Mike. Saw you made this edit to the Earth Starfleet ranks article. I'm rather curious why you uncapitalized near about everything. Ranks are titles, and should be capitalized at the very least; and having some things uncapitalized just looks unprofessional. I've noticed you tend to do it a lot elsewhere - like when typing categories and such. I've even noticed you go out of your way to un-capitalize things that look just fine the way they are. So, why? --Captain Savar 17:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC) :Well, it is my personal typography preference for some of the stylistic things like tables, but specifically for ranks, I've tried to carry across the same way things are done on Memory Alpha, where a rank is only capitalized as a title when referring to a specific person -- There is "Lieutenant Commander Data" when used as a title, but then when you say things about "the history of the rank of lieutenant commander", its not a title referring to a person as a proper noun, its being discussed as an improper noun as a general thing being discussed. :In reference to wiki markup, it makes linking easier to remain lowercase in as many situations as possible for words that could be expressed in either lower or upper case.. this is as the search box 'go' function might not return "Lieutenant Commander" if you type "lieutenant commander", but it will return "lieutenant commander" regardless of whether or not "lieutenant commander" or "Lieutenant Commander" are typed, unless we go ahead and make a redirect, so the lowercase situation lowers the amount of redirects we'd need to labor through to use to predict search behavior. -- Captain MKB 18:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Hey Cap There's a lot of chatter over at the Star Trek Online forum claiming that the events of the new movie and the Countdown series are in an alternate timeline from the rest of Trek. You heard anything about this being official? – AT2Howell 02:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC) :We won't really know until someone actually travels through time, will we? Do you think that I've seen the movie yet? Well, I haven't. I haven't even gotten issue 4 of Countdown. How would I be able to answer this without knowing anything about the movie or issue 4? Keeping in mind that "chatter" isn't a source we are allowed to use here. -- Captain MKB 03:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC) ::The page has some extra symbols in random locations (Klingon Cardassian alliance) and I don't know how to remove them. No, chatter isn't an acceptable source, but do you have any knowlege of J.J. Abrams saying this is in an alternate timeline? That's what they're claiming. Evidently this new picture is being promoted by it's makers as a "reboot" for Trek which will negate some previous cannon. – AT2Howell 15:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC) :::Those symbols aren't random, they're in the list of Sovereign class starships -- they show the affiliation of the one Sovereign class starship that was built by the Klingon Cardassian Alliance. :::As to the "reboot theory", I think (based on an incomplete synopsis of the film) that there is time-travel involved so that means that an alternate timeline will be created. If someone travels back in time, and creates an alternate timeline, Memory Beta doesn't consider the original timeline "negated" at all, Since it did exist at one point. As to canon, this means that both timelines will exist in canon. Please also notice how I correctly spell the word "canon". :::Anything further on this, I'm afraid you're going to have to discuss somewhere else than this site -- Memory Beta isn't a chat forum. Have you ever tried TrekBBS? -- Captain MKB 15:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC) ::::Nah, I don't really go for that hard-core trekkie stuff. I just like to read and take notes. That's how I ended up here in the first place. I was reading Articles of the Federation and was completely lost. I hadn't read trek in about ten years. The navy gave me a good chance to catch up, but now that I'm at NASA, I don't know if I still can. So yeah, I barely have enough time to write here now, let alone argue on some fan site. Maybe it'll change when I move closer to work next month. Sorry about the whole cannon/canon thing. – AT2Howell 17:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC) :::::Let me know when you finish Countdown. I have a question on the series as it applies to the rest of the universe, and want your input. – AT2Howell 00:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Ranks Hi Mike, I just wanted to ask for your advice with reformatting the rank pages. Now you did offer advice when I first worked on the articles a couple of years ago, but I got all stroppy and just ignored the help you were offering at the time. I'd like to apologize for that, and ask for your advice now. :D I was thinking that I got the Federation Starfleet ranks (2371-2373) uniforms and ranks completely wrong, because the uniforms and insignia were seen in use for the first two seasons of DS9 (2369/2370) and Star Trek: Borg had them in use as early as 2366/2367, so presumably they are an alternative uniform for the two-piece uniform introduced in 2366. --The Doctor 12:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC) :No problem -- I felt bad because I was too late to stop you from naming the files differently, so I could understand how it could be frustrating. Besides, that kind of discourse was not the worst I've ever seen here. :I think that the uniforms were totally coexistant also -- but I never had a source for the variants in use prior to 2369. I would've pushed the issue, but I didn't want to start a fight so I've just used the system in place. The ST Borg's 2366 use validates my theory -- they were always in use alongside the others, just not on the Enterprise until 2370 or so. The pages for the rank insignia should probably be merged.. -- Captain MKB 14:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC) ::Yes, the image naming issue is a problem, but I suppose I could always upload them with a name format more akin to your upload for the 2350s/early 2360s ranks. Before that, though I'm going to work through and find the "canon" ranks and weed out the "fanon" ranks. The only issue would be with speculatory rank images based off information given in novels. --The Doctor 14:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC) :The filenames could be slowly changed, after all, they aren't immediately visible to the casual reader so they don't really scream "wrong date" unless you are editing a table, which we could sort out better in the future as we work on the various aspects of these.. :On that speculatory topic, I'd be OK with deconstructing the controversial insignia and suggesting speculatory versions be run through the supplemental images voting -- for example, O'Brien is canonically a Senior Chief and his canon tab had three chevrons and two pips -- which gives us reason to believe that a Master Chief would be 3 chevrons/3 pips and that a regular Chief would be 3 chevrons/1 pip. We just have to see how many people would agree with that, with the supporting evidence that the structure is similar to the US system, which makes it clear how all the prominent enlisted titles could be approached. :The ones I'd worry about this site's treatment of would be the versions that are completely made-up -- like the ENT era chiefs, where we really don't have a good idea about the size or shape of their chevrons -- not enough to make more than an educated guess. My take would be that they would look like mirrored ENT crewman stripes (as in the US Air Force forming an upward chevron), but the only available reference (Kuro's fanon ranks) says different, with sideways military chevrons... things like that are more unclear and lead to fanon creep... -- Captain MKB ::Yes the supplemental image approval would be the best way to got with speculatory images. On [[User:The doctor/ranks|'this page']] I've started a comparison of canon rank images, to help whittle down what is OK and what isn't. Although, I made need your clarification on some of them, especially the ENT era ranks. --The Doctor 15:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC) :::Quick side question: For the Kenneth Dalby page of used the blank rank image, but I'd like to upload the rank image which has the provisional bar with a black pip which indicates a provisional crewman (at least on Voyager), so what image name do you think would be the best to use? --The Doctor 15:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC) :I started with file:Flt Adm 2364.png with adding my knowledge of sourcing to the images themselves -- for ENT era, I limited the uploads to those that canon showed us -- its clear-cut as there's no real non-canon ENT ranks source. I'll start making similar notations on all those uncited insignia and ask me if there's any you aren't sure of! -- Captain MKB 16:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC) :For Dalby, i'd say ? I'm thinking of adding the "alt" notation to all the DS9-Voyager uniforms... i'm not sure about abbreviating "provisional" either, and I used "enlisted" because the blank bar seemed to be used for all noncoms, but that part isn't 100% clear either so i used the vague term -- Captain MKB 16:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC) ::Thanks for that Mike, I've uploaded the image. Back to the main thrust of the conversation, I believe the 2366-2370s ranks should remain open-ended as the TNG two-piece uniform was seen as late as 2375 ("What You Leave Behind"), which surprised me, but I'd say they were definitely being phased out by that year as the new admirals uniform debuted in 2374 (at least Ross had his by then). --The Doctor 16:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC) :This is a good point -- we might need to make many of these unspecific -- after all, uniform styles overlapped in numerous places. * Vanguard has the new station using the TOS uniforms while Kirk's crew still hadn't replaced their 2250s uniforms (which John Byrne's CREW now shows are also 2240s uniforms)... * Kirk's TOS uniforms were still in use even though Decker and Starbase 10 got the TMP uniforms early in DC's ST Annual... * Kirk insisted on getting the maroon TWOK uniforms early while the rest of the fleet wore the TMP "pajamas" in New Earth. * The FASA contiuity has an interim design between the Movie uniforms and the TNG uniforms that was to be used by gamemasters when visiting personnel out of contact with SF command. * The 2250s TNG uniform was still in use until 2368-2370 on junior crewmembers after the 2366 uniforms became widespread. * The 2366 Admiral uniform, dress uniforms, as well as some other command uniforms remained after the 2373 style took over, as you note. :Maybe we should be vague and say "2360s" for all these uniforms, as their "changeover" dates take past 2366? The same for the "2370s" that took hold past 2373? -- Captain MKB 16:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC) ::Agreed, keeping it vague could be the best way. An alternate suggestion would be to have the introductory date as the first date and leave the second open-ended, but the problem with that is that we don't know the introductory date for all uniforms. --The Doctor 16:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC) :To list we have *Earth Starfleet -- there are two variations, where the later versions add superfluous epaulets and a nametag but no changes in the rank insignia scheme, so these can remain in one overview. 2140s is our earliest known use, 2161 the latest * Early Federation -- unfortunately, this is blank. There is a FASA reference with a Romulan War era trooper, but it seems to intend it to be a Coalition combat uniform, and not specifically an Earth or Federation uniform. Descriptions in "The Forgotten War" describe standard blue uniforms and jumpsuits and tunics with division colors, creating the mental image of a combination of ENT uniforms, which is coincidental, and TOS uniforms. The ranks are only vaguely described as stripes, seemingly along the later TOS scheme. There's also a Young adult novel with a not-so-specific cover image with color coded tunics from about this era. * Early 23rd century -- the upcoming film has something on this, from about the 2230s. No solid ranking info yet, just some pictures from licensed websites * Mid 24th century -- the Captain Pike uniforms are first seen in the early 2240s and last until 2265, and into 2266 on others who seem slower to change over. There are contradictory references to red versions of these even though no red ones were seen onscreen. Rank insignia don't always stay consistent either, onscreen or off. * There is a variant from the milieu of the new movie -- this seems to replace the Pike uniforms, but in an alternate reality... no info on that here yet, obviously * TOS uniforms - "2260s-2270" works as a description, as the replacement uniforms don't appear anytime before 2270 and these uniforms don't last anywhere past 2270. * TMP uniforms - maybe call these "2270" -- they last until at least 2273, but not past 2278. No solid dating info on the changeover since the date of "New Earth" is nebulous... the Marvel Untold Voyages might specify different, we should look there for more info. * Movies - call these "2270s-2350s" ? They have a variant when the collars and belts disappear, but this doesn't affect the ranks. * TNG season 1 - "2350s-2360s" * TNG/DS9/VOY - "2360s-2370s" * First Contact - "2370s" -- as long as "Countdown" stays in-timeline , we can call these "2370s-2380s" -- as we know they end between 2381 (Destiny) and 2387 (Countdown) :Whew! -- Captain MKB 17:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC) :Blimey that's a hell of a list :D. I agree with the set-up, as for the red uniforms in use in the 2240s-2260s page, I remember some of the and crew members wearing red in set in 2264. Tenuous, but it could be an indication, otherwise they could have just used the TOS uniforms and forgot about the old uniforms in use in "Where No Man Has Gone Before". --The Doctor 17:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC) ::They still had the Cage/Where No Man collars in that comic though -- the colorist just wasn't paying attention as the artist got other details right, like the wierd little viewcreens growing on stems out of the stations. A mistake like this also creeped into John Byrne's crew where a redshirt is seen, but his shirt turns back to beige again a panel later. Also strange, there are both beige and brown uniforms in that one. In the same era, George Kirk called himself and security companions "redshirts" which would be odd wearing beige like we'd expect.. Possibly, for onscreen we saw a crew wearing all "low visibility" variants and other postings had the other more colorful uniforms. -- Captain MKB 17:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC) More ranks Hi Mike, while going through the ranks for the 2370s, I noticed that in two guards stood behind Picard are wearing what could either be a chief insignia from the early TNG era, but there is a chance it could be ensign junior grade. Rather than make an arbitrary decision, I'd like to see your opinion. [http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/firstcontact/ch11/firstcontact0438.jpg image at TrekCore]. --The Doctor 23:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC) :By the time O'Brien got the updated chief insignia in the 2370s, they started using the "hollow" pip anomalously... Nog wore it, and was referred to as "ensign" even though he was still an academy cadet on battlefield commission as an officer. In real life, the technical term for his situation is "midshipman", but since he was referred to as "ensign" i think it creates a situation where a 2370s "ensign junior grade" and "midshipman" being the same thing would be a good explanation, since it would explain his position and also explain the rank they referred to him as. as soon as I have a day off, I'll get back to work on the FASA pins. they are a handfull. one discrepancy is that FASA states that all officers except fleet captains wore silver pips.. for all cases where we know this is not true, I'm substituting the gold pips actually worn in canon but I need to write down the explanation. the admiral ranks are also a heavy project, as they hadn't quite been figured out by TNG season 1-2... -- Captain MKB 23:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC) USS Essex I'm just working through the articles and I wondered about the registry number for the . Three different registries have been given from three different sources, but I noticed that the Essex appeared in a FASA sourcebook ("An Imbalance of Power"). I wondered if a registry was supplied, if so it could tip the balance with the naming of the page. If not, then perhaps we could take the "official" registry of NCC-1697 given in the Star Trek Encyclopedia. --The Doctor 23:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC) :I'll check that when I get home -- I might go to the IMAX tonight for a second time around -- I forgot to take notes on the USS Kelvin uniform insignia! :I have Imbalance of Power as a PDF, I'll peruse it later... -- Captain MKB 23:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Ensignsisko (not a defense) Hey, Mike... I only noticed this because Ensignsisko's talk page is still on my watchlist from the last round of conflict. Unless his comments on User_talk:Roger Murtaugh have since been edited, how is saying "Even though they aren't up to Memory Beta 'high standards', keep up the interesting work" an insult? I agree he has no room to talk but how is that comment (an invalid opinion though it is) terribly hurtful or worthy of a ban? I know there might be a tone of sarcasm in there you're picking up on and I'm not, but I just want to get your thought process here. Is there something else going on? Has he been obtuse in other ways lately? -- 17:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC) :Its a dig at Roger and myself because I asked Roger to change some writing and Roger complied. Roger's work was exemplary, and Ensignsisko was insulting both of us by implying that there was something wrong with asking him to alter it according to the rules. Whenever ES comes out of the woodwork, its usually when I communicate with a new user about our standards, so I decided to put a stop to it -- in this case, he was attempting to disparage the fact that a new user was participating in and responding to the concerns of another user that ES dislikes (me), which was disruptive. :Since he often leaves snarky messages on talk pages, but does not involve himself in article content, it makes him disruptive and counterproductive to anyone else getting to work on article content, so I've had it. Since we've already tried a trial ban and it did not improve his behavior much, I extended it. I'm open to any established user who considers themself to be ES's friend to approach me on his behalf, however -- but I doubt he has supporters here. -- Captain MKB 17:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC) ::Well, I'm certainly not his friend. And I've long since given up on trying to get through to him about his writing skills, though I suppose I did have success at one point. You'll get no argument from me. I just wanted to understand. Thanks. :-) -- 06:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Film data What's the consensus on incorporating material from the film. Are we going the Memory Alpha route of separate pages for the new "versions" of major characters? If there's a post up with the policy, I can't find it. -- 17:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC) My IP Address I was wondering if there was anyway to just ban Ensignsisko cause somehow he had the same IP Address as I have at home and since it got banned I can't edit at home. Thank You for taking the time to read this.--Rkdew0 14:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC) :I'm a little unclear on how to handle this... how do you have the same IP? couldn't you get yours reset to a different one as his? Also, I find it strange that you chose to start editing our site from his IP on the weekend he was banned, as you've never been around here much before. -- Captain MKB 03:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC) ::The reason I haven't been really active on here is I'm really active on the Yu-Gi-Oh! Wiki. Thing is I didn't no the IP had been banned until I had logged on that day. I honestly don't know what happened to how we both had the same IP addresses, as my Internet stays on 24-7 while the PC is on. So idk.--Rkdew0 14:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Bad Man I think that might be a vandal. Please stop him. – AT2Howell 18:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Discussion I'm not saying that the discussion is vandalism. I agree with 8of5 that there should be a separate section. But while we're discussing it, Savar is making changes to the page. To be more precise, he is removing information. That is vandalism. – AT2Howell 16:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC) :And now 8of5 fixed it. I really do like him. – AT2Howell 16:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)